It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Unusual Apollo pics, video and transcripts

page: 19
9
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 07:03 AM
link   
reply to post by Cheesefacedogbone
 


No, no "hands in pockets" there, sorry.

That particular photo has been discussed ad nauseum already. Here at ATS. Recently.

(Forget where, tho).

Quick rundown: Astronaut has chest-mounted Hasselblad, takes picture of other Astronaut.

Picture taker's image is reflected in the CURVED and CONVEX helmet visor of the subject in the photo.

Therefore picture taker's image (reflection) is distorted. Which is perfectly normal and can be re-created here on Earth, under similar conditions. It's basic photography, light, and physics and optics.

The acrimony arose because of the picture taker's stance....slightly askew. But, the Apollo deniers who believe in "Fakery" and "Hoaxes" don't understand the mobility of the EVA suits, and that people wearing them DO have limited ability to twist slightly, at the waist.




posted on Sep, 23 2010 @ 07:14 AM
link   
Hey all I said is it is interesting... Thats all. You have to admit, at first glance, thats kinda what it looks like. I saw it for the first time a couple hours ago.



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 09:04 AM
link   
I'm still wondering why we cant take photos like the example below of the 6 landers left on the moon, plus the rovers and the experiments.

I mean, if we can zoom in on an individual on earth with our pesky atmosphere getting in the way, why can't we see an image of at least one of the landers left on the moon in at least this much detail. Repeat, THIS much detail, not one pixel.

I hate to think how much more detailed military satellites would be.

The thing is, you can fly a satellite much, much lower on the moon than you can on earth. In fact they've already done this with many of the lunar orbiters, down to as low as 40kms.

So, considering you can fly a satellite much, much closer to the moon, why cant we at least match the image below. mmm.



If you want to check this image out for yourself, just fire up google earth and search BONDI BEACH SYDNEY

Also, don't forget the promises we've been made in the past...



2002: World's biggest telescope to prove Americans really walked on Moon
www.telegraph.co.uk...

"Conspiracy theorists, you have a problem. In an effort to silence claims that the Apollo Moon landings were faked, European scientists are to use the world's newest and largest telescope to see whether remains of the spacecraft are still on the lunar surface."

2010: No conclusive photos

2005: Spacecraft to check out Apollo Moon sites
www.usatoday.com...

2010: No conclusive photos

2009: Proof! Probe photos of Apollo landing sites reveal to doubters that man DID walk on the Moon
www.dailymail.co.uk...

2010: No conclusive photos

So, in conclusion, the press says 'we're going to prove it.' People believe it. They never follow up. And here we are in 2010 none the wiser.



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 09:21 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


Firstly, for Google Maps they used AIRPLANES to take the photographs for the lower-altitude, and therefore, close-up and higher resolution shots.


Although Google uses the word satellite, most of the high-resolution imagery is aerial photography taken from aircraft flying at 800-1500 feet rather than from satellites.


en.wikipedia.org...

Secondly, the types of (mostly highly classified) satellites in Earth orbit that are used for surveillance and espionage purposes are much too expensive (and technology not in the hands of NASA, anyway) to blast over to orbit the Moon just to satisfy a handful of crackpot Apollo "hoax" believers.

Look up the commercial-grade IKONOS satellite. Its abilites are public knowledge. (This means, by assumption, the military has stuff better. Again, though...it is THEIRS. And, those devices are in Earth orbit, not Lunar orbit).

Really, there is no foolish need to waste money SPECIFICALLY to satisfy "hoax" believers. The LRO camera has already, as a by-product of its other mission objectives, done so. (The Indians, too....although not as detailed). Too bad some people
simply refuse to understand and realize this.....unable to interpret, properly, what has been shown them.

Honestly, this Apollo "hoax" nosense is getting tiresome. AND, it is so easy to refute. Yawn.


~~~~~~~~~~
Added note: Oh, and that silly signature of yours??

It isn't because it is "impossible" to have a vehicle and launch system on the "launchpad" to go back to the Moon. It is because it is TOO DAM#ED EXPENSIVE!!!! At least, in any of the political climates that have existed since the early 1970s, in the USA. There is no political will to commit the resources, and suffer the inevitable criticism and fgallout that would result.

No other nation, nor consortium of nations, have undertaken the task as yet...although, as noted, India is showing interest, as well as China. In today's environment of "over"-engineering, in some cases, the expense is going to be multiples (even accounting for inflation) than the full costs in the 1960s and 1970s, in the U.S. economy. Further, this sort of long-term goal (ultimately, establishing a permanent base, for there's no other reason to expend the resources to get there) will have to have the costs shared, and borne by multiple, in this case International, partners.

Another possiblity would be for a spark of interest from commercial developers. Again, though....there will have to be a "pay off" at some point....businesses don't do the R&D and invest billions of $$$ without expecting some return on the investment, at some point in time. Aka, PROFITS and income.


edit on 28 September 2010 by weedwhacker because: Note



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 09:26 AM
link   
reason 99% of "live" footage and pitures where faked was because of radiation sickness umong other things ,

take a poorly insulated wool can and send it through space and youll have more diarea and puking then your basic horror flick fan can handle , let alone the world watching it "live"

not to mention micro metiorites that penetrate your skull and people just drop dead as if a switch was flicked off,.

reason why they where faked was to keep up a glorious picture of going where "none" ventured before..

cant be that hard to grasp, look at the suits and look at the insulation on the capsules then look at that the radiation levels out there ,

i bet you the real ammount of people who died while venturing to space is much grater then whats been told ,

and every now and then we see stars falling back to earth,....



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 09:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


As I said the first time you posted this, nobody has ever promised you your pictures. There is the possibility that at some point the landing sites will be photographed at a higher resolution during the course of other explorations. Then you will have to claim that those photos are faked, too. As for your signature: in 1937, airships supposedly ferried dozens of passengers across the Atlantic in Art Deco luxury. They even had smoking lounges. Today, seventy five years later, there's not one zeppelin capable of doing this. Does that make the Hindenburg a hoax?



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by zerbot565
 


You truly do not have the slightest clues as to what you're saying, do you???

:shk: :shk:

Sorry, but it needed to be pointed out. Lest some other naive and gullible person happen by, and read that tripe, and mistake some of it for a "fact".

Truly, astonishing. Wow....just..... wow!



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 09:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by DJW001
nobody has ever promised you your pictures.


Yes they did.



2002: World's biggest telescope to prove Americans really walked on Moon
www.telegraph.co.uk...

"Conspiracy theorists, you have a problem. In an effort to silence claims that the Apollo Moon landings were faked, European scientists are to use the world's newest and largest telescope to see whether remains of the spacecraft are still on the lunar surface."

2010: No conclusive photos

2005: Spacecraft to check out Apollo Moon sites
www.usatoday.com...

2010: No conclusive photos

2009: Proof! Probe photos of Apollo landing sites reveal to doubters that man DID walk on the Moon
www.dailymail.co.uk...

2010: No conclusive photos

So, in conclusion, the press says 'we're going to prove it.' People believe it. They never follow up. And here we are in 2010 none the wiser.


Did they fly planes over Area 51? I doubt it.




edit on 28-9-2010 by ppk55 because: added area 51



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 

Do you ever read anything other than headlines?
The Telegraph is any other news outlet really in a position to promise anything but if you go beyond the headlines you learn a bit more. But that still doesn't mean it's correct.


The VLT team hopes to improve on this, with the aim of detecting clear evidence for the presence of the landers. The base of the lunar modules measured about 10ft across, but would cast a much longer shadow under ideal conditions.

Dr West said that the challenge pushed the optical abilities of one VLT mirror to its limits: if this attempt failed, the team planned to use the power of all four mirrors. "They would most probably be sufficiently sharp to show something at the sites," he said.

I don't see a promise there. I see "hopes". I see "ideal conditions". I see nothing about being able to image the landers. I don't see anything about the fact when four mirrors are used the VLT becomes the VLTI, an interferometer. An interferometer is not really an optical telescope, it doesn't image objects, it images point sources of light. The Telegraph got it wrong.

An interested ATS member contacted ESO about it. Here is part of the response:

I have worked with Richard for some times (he was my thesis supervisor almost 20yrs ago) - the least I can say is that he was a very very careful gentleman, and that he very seldom issue anything like a bold statement. I can of course not claim he did not actually say that, but I have a suspicion that the journalists might have ... extrapolated a little what he said. This particular journalist does not strike me as very accurate (cf the notes in the above texts about the factual errors).

www.abovetopsecret.com...

2009. Quite convincing. Maybe not for you but the LROC isn't there to convince you.



edit on 9/28/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 12:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
Do you ever read anything other than headlines?


Yes actually, and I seem to be doing a lot more than you... I've emailed Dr. West twice.

On June 19, 2010, and July 5, 2010.

And guess what ... not one reply, even from an automated service.

And before you say .. Oh, he would be too busy and important to reply to some wacky moon hoax person.
If you check here www.abovetopsecret.com...
you will see I received replies from 2 emails within the hour ( which even I can't believe ) from the renowned Dr. Eleanor Blakely.

Here is my correspondence to Dr. West on June 19 that received no reply.


My emails to Dr. West of the VLT

Dear Richard,

I've been following the VLT for a number of years and was wondering if you have had any success in locating the Apollo remnants on the moon's surface.
I understand from an article written in 2002 in the UK Telegraph, that if one mirror failed you would consider using all 4 mirrors.

I was wondering, did you have any success using all 4 mirrors?

Here is the old article.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

I'm very interested in this project and would appreciate any update.

2nd email

Hi Richard, I'm sorry, I know you must be very busy, but if you find a
few spare seconds would you be able to answer my email sent
previously.
Thanks.


edit: the silence says it all I think.



edit on 28-9-2010 by ppk55 because: the silence + correct page for Dr Blakely reference



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 01:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by ^anubis^
What gets me going is how come we don't see any stars or other planets in the back ground. Is space really that lonely?


the backgrounds are flat black fill..... even considering the so called 'shutter speeds'..... there should at least be some little light here n there, smudge, stars, hell shooting stars, green flying thingies.... oh come on... i don't think its too difficult to prove the manipulations...



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 03:06 PM
link   
reply to post by mcrom901
 


It depends, there are some photos showing stars.



posted on Sep, 28 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 

"Renowned" Eleanor Blakely? Sure, why not.

I don't know why West would not reply to you. Speculation about peoples motives (even when I know them) is not something I find useful to engage in. Neither is jumping to conclusions.




edit on 9/28/2010 by Phage because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2010 @ 09:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
"Renowned" Eleanor Blakely? Sure, why not.


Why don't you take a minute to look at her extensive CV.
hacd.jsc.nasa.gov...

Now here is an interesting photo. I'm not too sure what to think.
I've tried to find an answer to this online but without much luck. Maybe someone here can point out what is happening with the astronauts right boot. It looks like it turns into a stick, that then ends up in a lump of something... thoughts ? The image is AS17-140-21497




posted on Sep, 30 2010 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


Ummmm...you don't suppose that in that shot there's a huge boulder partially blocking our view of his leg?

Else, I haven't a clue as to your point.....



posted on Sep, 30 2010 @ 10:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by weedwhacker
you don't suppose that in that shot there's a huge boulder partially blocking our view of his leg?


It's not blocking the area in question which is just above the ankle. Why does his suit cut off and then turn into a stick going into a mound ? very curious.

edit: from your reply time stamp, I think you should spend more than 4 minutes considering what I've posted before replying.


edit on 30-9-2010 by ppk55 because: added very, very fast response



posted on Sep, 30 2010 @ 03:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


What are you talking about? Please post a link to the photo so we can see it as part of a sequence. It looks like dust spilling off the sole of the astronaut's boot. Do you think it's a lunar gopher hole or something?



posted on Sep, 30 2010 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


It's a rock in front of his foot Cernan disturbed while sampling.




This is what Schmitt says about it:

"Gene stepped to the northeast corner of fragment 1, put his left hand on the dust-covered shelf to support himself, and reached out as far as possible toward the center of the dusted area and swept the bag twice from his right to his left, leaving furrows and, at the lefthand end of each furrow, a small mound of dust where he stopped... A labeled detail from frame AS17-140-21496 shows the sample location, the area on the shelf probably disturbed by his left hand, and the area on the ground between fragment 1 and the foreground rock that he disturbed while taking the sample and earlier, at about 165:25:48, in the flightline."



posted on Sep, 30 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ppk55
 


I still don't see anything unusual...

I see his lower leg, to the ankle, and the boot...slightly flexed.

Found this, not sure which photo # it is....see the feet? The boots? They flexed. People move about, and sometimes the camera will catch what "looks" odd, just as the shutter opens.....



Here's where the photo was posted: www.nature.com...

Y'all can figure out when it was taken, if ya wanna......I really don't see any issues here. Except EXTREME nitpicking and grasping at straws...



edit on 30 September 2010 by weedwhacker because: Link



posted on Oct, 1 2010 @ 12:10 PM
link   
This is why I posted this image, to try and get an answer. So thanks everyone.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
you don't suppose that in that shot there's a huge boulder partially blocking our view of his leg?


Originally posted by DJW001
It looks like dust spilling off the sole of the astronaut's boot.


Originally posted by nataylor
It's a rock in front of his foot Cernan disturbed while sampling.


Originally posted by weedwhacker
I see his lower leg, to the ankle, and the boot...slightly flexed.


I asked some people today and got the same responses. No one could be sure.

So here's what I think.

I think that rock isn't as big as it looks. (the big one posted in the wide shot above)
That is a model astronaut.
When zoomed out, that 'lump' his right foot is attached to is designed to look like dust flying, making it appear the astro is in motion. Which is actually quite convincing until you zoom in.

Whether you think it's a rock, or dust, what is that stick like object I've labelled 'What is this?'

I am perfectly happy to be proved wrong on this. But something is not right with this.




edit on 1-10-2010 by ppk55 because: reference to wide shot above



new topics




 
9
<< 16  17  18    20  21  22 >>

log in

join